First Drive: 2012 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG
07-14-11, 09:18 AM
#16
Lexus Test Driver
No offense intended.........but I don't get this apprehension against turbocharging?
As good as the previous AMG engines were that use natural aspiration, it's just ignorance to ignore the benefits brought about by turbocharging.
I guess some people can't accept change (?)
As good as the previous AMG engines were that use natural aspiration, it's just ignorance to ignore the benefits brought about by turbocharging.
I guess some people can't accept change (?)
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
07-14-11, 10:36 AM
#17
Ah I see, so anyone who doesn't like turbos is ignorant? Give me a freaking break. It's funny how you accuse others of ignorance with such a close-minded perspective of your own.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
07-14-11, 11:35 AM
#18
Lexus Champion
Ah I see, so anyone who doesn't like turbos is ignorant? Give me a freaking break. It's funny how you accuse others of ignorance with such a close-minded perspective of your own.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
Although the trend is for manufacturers to move towards turbo charged engines, I'm glad that at least the 2012 C63 will keep the NA engine.
07-14-11, 11:37 AM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
one word: beast! 
07-14-11, 02:01 PM
#20
I can't deny the power of the new engine (or fuel economy), but the engine note of the old 6.2L is out of this world. Absolute beast. I should mention that the durability of NA engines over Forced Induction is better over time. I love NA engines, but with fuel economy regulations becoming more stringent, the trend will probably continue with smaller displacement engines and FI
07-14-11, 02:17 PM
#21
It's ironic that when the M156 engine was first introduced, many people hated the engine because it was NA and not as tune friendly as the 5.4L M113 engine. I agree with you that the M156 is a great engine and the exhaust note is simply amazing (especially on the C63 and refreshed SL63).
Although the trend is for manufacturers to move towards turbo charged engines, I'm glad that at least the 2012 C63 will keep the NA engine.
Although the trend is for manufacturers to move towards turbo charged engines, I'm glad that at least the 2012 C63 will keep the NA engine.
07-15-11, 09:34 AM
#22
Lexus Champion
Ah I see, so anyone who doesn't like turbos is ignorant? Give me a freaking break. It's funny how you accuse others of ignorance with such a close-minded perspective of your own.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
The M156 is a brilliant engine; reviews have consistently praised the throttle response and torque curve, which are both especially impressive given it is such a large displacement engine. No doubt, the M156's characteristics are primarily due to it being AMG's first ever in-house development as opposed to merely a tune or FI of an existing MB-designed engine as they all have been in the past. (This is a particularly amazing feature given that even the legendary CLK GTR cannot claim its own powerplant.)
Bring in the M157, the new AMG engine. What is it? Just a bored and stroked version of the MB's base "550" model engine with slightly higher boost. Great. So we're actually moving backwards from AMG developing the engines that go into the cars with their label on them. And the verdict already seems to be in, what with multiple mags/sites all mentioning in reviews (of different models that the M157 is in, anyway) that the new twin-turbo is less responsive, and in the case of C+D, worst of all, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Engineers are on record as saying big reasons for the switch were for fuel economy and because the MB base vehicles are getting too heavy. Again, great.
It's obvious this engine replacement has been something pushed down on AMG by the corporate bigwigs at MB, whether for fuel economy, cost saving, spec figure chasing, other corporate mandates, or a combination of all of those. And that's something that no enthusiast should want in a car that is supposed to be special.
Just because an engine can produce bigger numbers on a piece of paper doesn't make it better, so, please, spare me the personal attacks.
I'm sure you know this as well.
So do you still wanna insist that your approach is still the most effective in today's environment?
I do hope though that you're not one of those who went on a protest when they discontinued the S85 engine (which is a fantastic engine which won more than five awards) and then replaced it with an enhanced S63 engine for the new BMW M5.
Let's face it. As much your approach has merit, you have to realize that there are constraints being imposed upon (and I presume these will be tighten even further as time goes by). It sucks and I myself don't like this over-regulation but what do you propose you do? Fight the regulators?
Well good luck then.
Simply put, the principle at hand is this: Adapt to change or GTFO
07-15-11, 03:46 PM
#23
Lexus Test Driver
For some reason, while recklessly accusing others of ignorance, you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that corporate bigwigs clamping down on performance innovation due to emissions or fuel economy regulations is bad for enthusiasts.
Turbos creeping in across all these performance marques due to need to lower fuel economy is exactly the problem. This is not innovation nor is it advancement. It is wasted resources in the name of pandering to legislators and politicized movements, along with the corporate pencil-pushers who've decided to bow down in servitude to them. One perfect example of this is the gas guzzler tax in the US. Why more companies don't fight this tooth and nail is beyond me - it's among the most absurd taxes in existence, considering it doesn't apply to some of the biggest gas guzzlers out there: SUVs and trucks. The gov is basically saying that we need to deter purchases of the few thousand C63s out there but not the millions of SUVs which get worse fuel mileage?
But for whatever reason, the auto companies and their lobbyists accept it.And yes, the M3 and M5 moving away from their naturally-aspirated powerplants is awful. It's one of the biggest criticisms I've levied against BMW in recent times, other than the HPFP failures, anyway. The M5 engine, despite being a 90° bank angle, was a magnificent powerplant, particularly amazing considering it was in one of the most affordable V10 packages available on the road.
It's not about effective or not. It's about whether the direction is good for enthusiasts or bad for enthusiasts. It's really that simple.
Last edited by gengar; 07-15-11 at 03:51 PM.
07-17-11, 12:54 AM
#27
Lexus Champion
@gengar
Heh, it appears that you really don't like turbos don't you? Well I have some piece of news for you: Turbos have also powered other sport and performance cars. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo (since the CT9A) uses turbo, the Audi RS6 (current one and the upcoming one) uses twin turbos. Heck, the world's fast street-legal vehicle uses four of them (which in the Supersport version gets it to at least 1200 horsepower stock).
You do have to realize that while natural aspiration is an effective way to achieve true vehicular performance, it is NOT THE ONE AND ONLY effective way to do so.
Judging from your latest post alone, you appear to have an apprehension against anything that isn't naturally-aspirated. I don't think that's a fair judgment.
Well, fact of the matter is that there seems to be an increasing number of sport/performance manufacturers that are moving towards turbocharging and supercharging.
Yeah, you do seem to be an NA-purist.......but I don't believe it's fair to discount the benefits of what engine charging has brought into the table.
Heh, it appears that you really don't like turbos don't you? Well I have some piece of news for you: Turbos have also powered other sport and performance cars. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo (since the CT9A) uses turbo, the Audi RS6 (current one and the upcoming one) uses twin turbos. Heck, the world's fast street-legal vehicle uses four of them (which in the Supersport version gets it to at least 1200 horsepower stock).
You do have to realize that while natural aspiration is an effective way to achieve true vehicular performance, it is NOT THE ONE AND ONLY effective way to do so.
Judging from your latest post alone, you appear to have an apprehension against anything that isn't naturally-aspirated. I don't think that's a fair judgment.
Well, fact of the matter is that there seems to be an increasing number of sport/performance manufacturers that are moving towards turbocharging and supercharging.
Yeah, you do seem to be an NA-purist.......but I don't believe it's fair to discount the benefits of what engine charging has brought into the table.
07-17-11, 07:56 PM
#29
Lexus Test Driver
As a side note, what kind of a joke is saying the Evo has used turbo since the CT9A? It has ALWAYS used turbo. I got the chance to daily drive an X MR for several thousand miles when it first came out; the Evo is one of my favorite marques, despite my mixed feelings about its current mainstream iterations.
I don't think they can go that small literage and still be effective. That's one reason that while I of course would totally love MB/BMW making a high-revving 3L twin turbo V8 that sounds like an F1 engine like whoster does, I don't think it'll ever happen, because they'll just never get that high rpms. I guess we have to leave that to more specialized productions like those by McLaren, although the MP4-12C doesn't sound that good.
That's one reason I don't like F1 going back to twin turbos, as I just don't feel the tech is likely to affect more mainstream vehicles, unlike the naturally-aspirated variants.
Last edited by gengar; 07-18-11 at 08:48 AM.
07-18-11, 08:27 AM
#30
Lexus Champion
Hmm.......well if you are saying that you are at least open to different engine performance methods (i.e. not only natural aspiration but also with methods like engine charging and force induction), then at the very least we can agree on something I guess.
I will acknowledge though that I made mistake somewhere. Yeah, you were right regarding the Evo in that it used a turbo engine ever since the first version (4G63T from 1st version up to the CT9A).
I must've mixed up with introduction of variable valve timing (MIVEC) for the CT9A. My bad hehe
I will acknowledge though that I made mistake somewhere. Yeah, you were right regarding the Evo in that it used a turbo engine ever since the first version (4G63T from 1st version up to the CT9A).
I must've mixed up with introduction of variable valve timing (MIVEC) for the CT9A. My bad hehe
Last edited by Blackraven; 07-18-11 at 08:31 AM.